search

Main menu

Activity

Able 2 presents the results of the p*/ERGM technique predicting the likelihood of proposal collaboration among A include things like all proposals submitted inside the final 3 years of a Awarded and un-awarded researchers (Full Model), among only awarded researchers (Awarded Model), and among un-awarded researchers (Un-awarded Model). The focus of this study was to explain what motivates a researcher to choose a specific collaborator. Our analysis is based on only examining the population of researchers that submitted proposals to the two NSF initiatives and hence does not include possible collaboration opportunities with those who did not submit proposals. Hypothesis 1 predicted that female researchers are more likely than men to collaborate with other researchers on interdisciplinary teams. The results of the full model and the un-awarded model indicate that gender has no 1471-2474-14-48 significant impact on an individual’s likelihood of collaboration on interdisciplinary teams. The co-proposal links with at least one female PI are more likely to be observed in the awarded proposals than those between male PIs. ( = 0.119, OR= 1.1262, p < 0.05). Thus, Hypothesis 1 is partially supported. Hypothesis 2 predicted that researchers with high tenure (i.e. more years since Ph.D.) are more likely to collaborate with other researchers on interdisciplinary teams. Tenure has a positive and significant effect in the2This is the odds ratio and OR = e.J Informetr. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 January 01.Lungeanu et al.Pagefulland un-awarded models ( = 0.002, OR = 1.002, p < 0.05). The effect is not significant in awarded proposals. Thus, Hypothesis 2 is partially supported.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptHypotheses 3 and 4 posited that researchers from top-tier universities and with high H-index scores, respectively, are less likely to collaborate with other researchers on interdisciplinary teams. The estimate for institution tier is negative and significant in all three models ( = -0.098, -0.098, -0.104, OR=0.907, 0.907, 0.901, p < 0.05). In general, researchers from the top 10 of universities are less likely to collaborate on proposals: The odds of collaboration for top-tier researchers are only 90 of the odds for non-top-tier researchers. Similarly researchers with high H-index scores are less likely to collaborate than those with low Hindex scores ( = -0.018, -0.005, -0.009, OR=0.982, 0.995, 0.991, p < 0.05). Both Hypotheses 3 and 4 are fully supported. Hypothesis 5 stated that previous co-authorship increases the chance of subsequent collaboration. All three models show significant positive effects of co-authorship relations ( jir.2012.0142 = 2.431, 1.386, 0.914, OR=11.37, 3.999, 2.494, p < 0.05). This suggests that researchers that published papers together previously are more likely to collaborate on interdisciplinary teams. Furthermore, the impact of co-authorship among the researchers on un-awarded proposals is smaller than among the researchers of awarded proposals. Among awarded proposals, the odds of a proposal collaboration between researchers with one previously coauthored paper are almost 4 times higher than among researchers without a prior coauthorship relation ( = 1.386, OR = 3.999, p < 0.05). Among un-awarded proposals, the odds of a proposal collaboration between researchers with one previously co-authored paper are only 2.5 times higher than among researchers without a prior co-authorship relation ( = 0.914, OR = 2.494, p < 0.05).